Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: Michael Graff <explorer(at)flame(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: IPv6 address parsing for inet/cidr types (take II)
Date: 2003-04-13 23:39:58
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.44.0304140103520.6904-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw or whole thread)
Lists: pgsql-patches
Michael Graff writes:

> One other poster suggested they should be two data types, which I half
> agree with.  There are advantages of being able to use IPv4 or IPv6
> addresses in the same column, so I wouldn't have to have two tables
> for host <-> address mappings, for instance.  I'm undecided on which
> is better, but so far I've used the inet with ipv4 and 6 data type
> once and found them useful under one data type.

Perhaps we can make "inet" take both and then define domains "inet4" and
"inet6" over it that only take one kind.

Peter Eisentraut   peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to


pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Christopher Kings-LynneDate: 2003-04-14 01:50:42
Subject: Re: Modern C++ Interface
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2003-04-13 22:56:29
Subject: Re: Reserved Key Words, Using "path" as a table name

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2015 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group